Interesting find here which gives the legal basis for a military coup in the US. Call to dig.

New Rule Allows U.S. Military to Act without President’s Authorization

In a major power grab of dubious constitutionality, the U.S. military last week claimed for itself the power to act unilaterally—without the authorization of the President—in case of “civil disturbances,” threatening a 200-year-old system that strictly forbids the military from becoming involved in civilian law enforcement. Seemingly innocuous in its brevity and simplicity, the new rule's chief danger lies in its vagueness:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances. (italics added.)

The rule defines none of its key terms, which appear in italics above, raising questions of enormous import. A sergeant, for example, has command of soldiers in his or her squad—is the sergeant a “commander” under this rule? Even if the rule were restricted to those with the rank of Army colonel or above, there are more than 4,000 full-bird colonels in the Army. What is a “civil disturbance”? How large is “large-scale”? Where is the line between situations civilian authorities are able to control and those they are not? If elected officials believe a situation is under control, can the military commander countermand them and intervene with force anyway?

“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” argues Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, who calls the rule “a wanton power grab by the military…because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

Drawing a chilling comparison to interwar Germany, Afran says the rule is “no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [that governed Germany from 1919 to 1933]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.” Pointing to the lack of a clear definition of a civil disturbance, Afran notes, “In the Sixties all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State.” Or the brutal crackdowns on Occupy.

Rejecting Afran's view, a Pentagon official told the Long Island Press that “the authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised.” Despite these claims, the previously existing laws said by DoD to permit direct military participation in civilian law enforcement include obscure, century-old statutes like an 1882 law (16 USC § 593) empowering the President to use military force to protect “the timber of the United States in Florida” and the Guano Islands Act of 1856 permitting the President to use force to protect the rights of one who discovers a guano island covered by the Act.

The problem for the military is that both the Constitution and federal law are clear in their intent of keeping the military out of domestic affairs. Even the Declaration of Independence weighs in, criticizing King George III for trying “to render the military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.” The Constitution, in Article IV, bars the military from intervening in any state unless the state requests help because domestic violence threatens its “republican” government.

The Insurrection Act of 1807 limits the circumstances under which the president may use the military to suppress an insurrection, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the military from assisting civilian law enforcement except in circumstances “authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress,” including “insurrection, domestic violence, or conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law” as well as actions “taken under express statutory authority.”

The trouble for the Pentagon is that there is no such “express statutory authority” for its sweeping new rule. As Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor at Hofstra University, puts it, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute,” making the new rule “an unauthorized power grab,” according to Freedman. Given President Barack Obama's tacit support of the new rule, only Congress or the federal courts have the power to roll back or strike down the military's latest move.

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/new-rule-allows-us-military-to-act-without-presidents-authorization-130520?news=850072

>>54632

The regulation -

CHAPTER 15—MILITARY SUPPORT FOR CIVILIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title10/subtitleA/part1/chapter15&edition=prelim

>>54636

Absolutely. It’s an exciting find.

Strangely it also fits in with what Q said, that the military would be deployed under the guise of civil unrest.

Interesting comment from anon under the article here >>54632

What the military has done here is set up a countervailing power to be used in the event it is impossible for the president to act - if for example he were incapable of acting because he was under military detention or declared mentally incompetent by a military doctor. In other words, this constitutes yet another vector of attack on our constitutional system: in effect, it creates the legal basis for a military coup - you know, like the ones our military fomented in Latin America during the Cold War to prevent dangerous leftists from seizing power (democratically). Students of history will recognize the process — same thing happened to the Roman Republic.

>>54632

>>54634

Related -

GOP Rep. Waltz: ‘We Can’t Get a Briefing’ on Why National Guard Is Still in Capitol

On Monday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “The Story,” Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL) said that Congress still can’t get a briefing on the threat that requires a large National Guard presence at the U.S. Capitol and that he doesn’t have answers after speaking to the acting secretary of the Army.

Waltz said, “We still have National Guardsmen out there, away from their families, away from their jobs, supplementing the police. And yet, we can’t get a briefing on what is this dire threat that requires so many people.”

He added, “I even spoke to the acting secretary of the Army and said, why do we have more troops in the Capitol than we have in Iraq and Afghanistan combined? And we still don’t have answers.”

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2021/02/08/gop-rep-waltz-we-cant-get-a-briefing-on-why-national-guard-is-still-in-capitol/

>>54632

On the same regulation -

Pentagon Unilaterally Grants Itself Authority Over ‘Civil Disturbances’

2013

The manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspects offered the nation a window into the stunning military-style capabilities of our local law enforcement agencies. For the past 30 years, police departments throughout the United States have benefitted from the government’s largesse in the form of military weaponry and training, incentives offered in the ongoing “War on Drugs.” For the average citizen watching events such as the intense pursuit of the Tsarnaev brothers on television, it would be difficult to discern between fully outfitted police SWAT teams and the military.

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

Click here to read the new rule

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because it violates the long-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”

A defense official who declined to be named takes a different view of the rule, claiming, “The authorization has been around over 100 years; it’s not a new authority. It’s been there but it hasn’t been exercised. This is a carryover of domestic policy.” Moreover, he insists the Pentagon doesn’t “want to get involved in civilian law enforcement. It’s one of those red lines that the military hasn’t signed up for.” Nevertheless, he says, “every person in the military swears an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States to defend that Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.”

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stories/new-rule-allows-us-military-to-act-without-presidents-authorization-130520?news=850072

>>54645

Cont.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the new procedures that govern military command on the ground in the event of a civil disturbance relates to authority. Not only does it fail to define what circumstances would be so severe that the president’s authorization is “impossible,” it grants full presidential authority to “Federal military commanders.” According to the defense official, a commander is defined as follows: “Somebody who’s in the position of command, has the title commander. And most of the time they are centrally selected by a board, they’ve gone through additional schooling to exercise command authority.”

As it is written, this “commander” has the same power to authorize military force as the president in the event the president is somehow unable to access a telephone. (The rule doesn’t address the statutory chain of authority that already exists in the event a sitting president is unavailable.) In doing so, this commander must exercise judgment in determining what constitutes, “wanton destruction of property,” “adequate protection for Federal property,” “domestic violence,” or “conspiracy that hinders the execution of State or Federal law,” as these are the circumstances that might be considered an “emergency.”

“These phrases don’t have any legal meaning,” says Afran. “It’s no different than the emergency powers clause in the Weimar constitution [of the German Reich]. It’s a grant of emergency power to the military to rule over parts of the country at their own discretion.”

Afran also expresses apprehension over the government’s authority “to engage temporarily in activities necessary to quell large-scale disturbances.”

“Governments never like to give up power when they get it,” says Afran. “They still think after twelve years they can get intelligence out of people in Guantanamo. Temporary is in the eye of the beholder. That’s why in statutes we have definitions. All of these statutes have one thing in common and that is that they have no definitions. How long is temporary? There’s none here. The definitions are absurdly broad.”

The U.S. military is prohibited from intervening in domestic affairs except where provided under Article IV of the Constitution in cases of domestic violence that threaten the government of a state or the application of federal law. This provision was further clarified both by the Insurrection Act of 1807 and a post-Reconstruction law known as the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (PCA). The Insurrection Act specifies the circumstances under which the president may convene the armed forces to suppress an insurrection against any state or the federal government. Furthermore, where an individual state is concerned, consent of the governor must be obtained prior to the deployment of troops. The PCA—passed in response to federal troops that enforced local laws and oversaw elections during Reconstruction—made unauthorized employment of federal troops a punishable offense, thereby giving teeth to the Insurrection Act.

Together, these laws limit executive authority over domestic military action. Yet Monday’s official regulatory changes issued unilaterally by the Department of Defense is a game-changer.

The stated purpose of the updated rule is “support in Accordance With the Posse Comitatus Act,” but in reality it undermines the Insurrection Act and PCA in significant and alarming ways. The most substantial change is the notion of “civil disturbance” as one of the few “domestic emergencies” that would allow for the deployment of military assets on American soil.

To wit, the relatively few instances that federal troops have been deployed for domestic support have produced a wide range of results. Situations have included responding to natural disasters and protecting demonstrators during the Civil Rights era to, disastrously, the Kent State student massacre and the 1973 occupation of Wounded Knee.

Michael German, senior policy counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), noted in a 2009 Daily Kos article that, “there is no doubt that the military is very good at many things. But recent history shows that restraint in their new-found domestic role is not one of them.”

https://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/

>>54645

>>54649

Cont.

At the time German was referring to the military’s expanded surveillance techniques and hostile interventions related to border control and the War on Drugs. And in fact, many have argued that these actions have already upended the PCA in a significant way. Even before this most recent rule change, the ACLU was vocal in its opposition to the Department of Defense (DoD) request to expand domestic military authority “in the event of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high yield explosive (CBRNE) incidents.” The ACLU’s position is that civilian agencies are more than equipped to handle such emergencies since 9/11. (ACLU spokespersons in Washington D.C. declined, however, to be interviewed for this story.)

But while outcomes of military interventions have varied, the protocol by which the president works cooperatively with state governments has remained the same. The president is only allowed to deploy troops to a state upon request of its governor. Even then, the military—specifically the National Guard—is there to provide support for local law enforcement and is prohibited from engaging in any activities that are outside of this scope, such as the power to arrest.

Eric Freedman, a constitutional law professor from Hofstra University, also calls the ruling “an unauthorized power grab.” According to Freedman, “The Department of Defense does not have the authority to grant itself by regulation any more authority than Congress has granted it by statute.” Yet that’s precisely what it did. This wasn’t, however, the Pentagon’s first attempt to expand its authority domestically in the last decade.

Déjà vu

During the Bush Administration, Congress passed the 2007 Defense Authorization Bill that included language similar in scope to the current regulatory change. It specifically amended the Insurrection Act to expand the president’s ability to deploy troops domestically under certain conditions including health epidemics, natural disasters and terrorist activities, though it stopped short of including civil disturbances. But the following year this language was repealed under the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008 via a bill authored by Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) who cited the “useful friction” between the Insurrection and Posse Comitatus Acts in limiting executive authority.

According to the DoD, the repeal of this language had more to do with procedure and that it was never supposed to amend the Insurrection Act. “When it was actually passed,” says the defense official, “Congress elected to amend the Insurrection Act and put things in the Insurrection Act that were not insurrection, like the support for disasters and emergencies and endemic influenza. Our intent,” he says, “was to give the president and the secretary access to the reserve components. It includes the National Guard and, rightfully so, the governors were pretty upset because they were not consulted.”

Senator Leahy’s office did not have a statement as of press time, but a spokesperson said the senator had made an inquiry with the DoD in response to our questions. The defense official confirmed that he was indeed being called in to discuss the senator’s concerns in a meeting scheduled for today. But he downplayed any concern, saying, “Congress at any time can say ‘we don’t like your interpretation of that law and how you’ve interpreted it in making policy’—and so they can call us to the Hill and ask us to justify why we’re doing something.”

https://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/

>>54645

>>54649

>>54652

Cont.

Last year, Bruce Afran and another civil liberties attorney Carl Mayer filed a lawsuit against the Obama Administration on behalf of a group of journalists and activists lead by former New York Times journalist Chris Hedges. They filed suit over the inclusion of a bill in the NDAA 2012 that, according to the plaintiffs, expanded executive authority over domestic affairs by unilaterally granting the executive branch to indefinitely detain U.S. citizens without due process. The case has garnered international attention and invited vigorous defense from the Obama Administration. Even Afran goes so far as to say this current rule change is, “another NDAA. It’s even worse, to be honest.”

For Hedges and the other plaintiffs, including Pentagon Papers whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, the government’s ever-expanding authority over civilian affairs has a “chilling effect” on First Amendment activities such as free speech and the right to assemble. First District Court Judge Katherine Forrest agreed with the plaintiffs and handed Hedges et al a resounding victory prompting the Department of Justice to immediately file an injunction and an appeal. The appellate court is expected to rule on the matter within the next few months.

Another of the plaintiffs in the Hedges suit is Alexa O’Brien, a journalist and organizer who joined the lawsuit after she discovered a Wikileaks cable showing government officials attempting to link her efforts to terrorist activities. For activists such as O’Brien, the new DoD regulatory change is frightening because it creates, “an environment of fear when people cannot associate with one another.” Like Afran and Freedman, she too calls the move, “another grab for power under the rubric of the war on terror, to the detriment of citizens.”

“This is a complete erosion of the rule of law,” says O’Brien. Knowing these sweeping powers were granted under a rule change and not by Congress is even more harrowing to activists. “That anything can be made legal,” says O’Brien, “is fundamentally antithetical to good governance.”

As far as what might qualify as a civil disturbance, Afran notes, “In the Sixties all of the Vietnam protests would meet this description. We saw Kent State. This would legalize Kent State.”

But the focus on the DoD regulatory change obscures the creeping militarization that has already occurred in police departments across the nation. Even prior to the NDAA lawsuit, journalist Chris Hedges was critical of domestic law enforcement agencies saying, “The widening use of militarized police units effectively nullifies the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878.”

This de facto nullification isn’t lost on the DoD.

The DoD official even referred to the Boston bombing suspects manhunt saying, “Like most major police departments, if you didn’t know they were a police department you would think they were the military.” According to this official there has purposely been a “large transfer of technology so that the military doesn’t have to get involved.” Moreover, he says the military has learned from past events, such as the siege at Waco, where ATF officials mishandled military equipment. “We have transferred the technology so we don’t have to loan it,” he states.

But if the transfer of military training and technology has been so thorough, it boggles the imagination as to what kind of disturbance would be so overwhelming that it would require the suspension of centuries-old law and precedent to grant military complete authority on the ground. The DoD official admits not being able to “envision that happening,” adding, “but I’m not a Hollywood screenwriter.”

Afran, for one, isn’t buying the logic. For him, the distinction is simple.

“Remember, the police operate under civilian control,” he says. “They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn’t change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can’t remove the military from power.”

Despite protestations from figures such as Afran and O’Brien and past admonitions from groups like the ACLU, for the first time in our history the military has granted itself authority to quell a civil disturbance. Changing this rule now requires congressional or judicial intervention.

“This is where journalism comes in,” says Freedman. “Calling attention to an unauthorized power grab in the hope that it embarrasses the administration.”

Afran is considering amending his NDAA complaint currently in front of the court to include this regulatory change.

As we witnessed during the Boston bombing manhunt, it’s already difficult to discern between military and police. In the future it might be impossible, because there may be no difference.

/end/

https://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/

>>54632

Related -

What we know about Myanmar's military coup:

- Military claims election fraud

- Says it will take power for 1 year

• Constitution gives military emergency powers, other controls

• Elected leader Aung San Suu Kyi had proposed changing constitution for "complete democracy"

https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/1356220001074733056

>>54646

Anon friends were saying that the military didn’t have the power to do what Q said they be doing, and this was an issue, the legality of it all, but here we have it, the legal basis for the military to take control.

Mayanmar, whether connected or not, could be easing the way for normies to hear about the predicament/situation and to accept it more easily when it happens in the US.

>>54658

Understand. Coups take place regularly in developing countries and we don’t bat an eye, but really, the US is no better than any developing country right now.

With no rule of law, kangaroo courts, show trials, election fraud, a third world voting system, political persecution and literally a banana republic, there’s little difference apart from the wealth and standard of living.

Mayanmar could be foresight into what could happen here very soon.

>>54661

Definitely

>>54668

Probably. Maybe they have to experience real-life direct negative results of having a China controlled gov.

>>54665

Feel for you.

We’re at war with a few feral cats. Haven’t been getting a wink for them thumping on the beach house roof at night.

Yesterday we covered the roof and walls with hot cayenne pepper though and it’s worked. Not a sign of them for 10 hours now. Thank God. First uninterrupted sleep forever.

>>54670

Great.

Was reading that cayenne pepper sprinkled can also protect plants and veggies from animals and bugs. Maybe squirrels.

>>54673

This. It could take a while, bar a wake up event.

Your title’s where it’s at.

>>54675

8kun admins aren't answering any support queries rn.

It is what it is. This ship we got for free.

We’re used to working around the glitches.

>>54681

Kek

>>54684

Shake it all ova

>>54632

Full text of the 2013 rule -

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[DOD-2009-OS-0038; RIN 0790-AI54]

32 CFR Part 182

Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Final rule.

https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-04-12/html/2013-07802.htm

>>54689

That’s it. It’s the only thing to do.

Having to break up most articles here as well now.

Wouldn’t be surprised if it just reverts one day.

>>54695

Ridin on through

>>54645

On the military being able to act w/o Presidential authority.

From this article -

The lines blurred even further Monday as a new dynamic was introduced to the militarization of domestic law enforcement. By making a few subtle changes to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled “Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies” the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.

The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of “civil disturbances.” According to the rule:

—Federal military commanders have the authority, in extraordinary emergency circumstances where prior authorization by the President is impossible and duly constituted local authorities are unable to control the situation, to engage temporarily in activities that are necessary to quell large-scale, unexpected civil disturbances.—

Bruce Afran, a civil liberties attorney and constitutional law professor at Rutgers University, calls the rule, “a wanton power grab by the military,” and says, “It’s quite shocking actually because —it violates thelong-standing presumption that the military is under civilian control.”—

https://www.longislandpress.com/2013/05/14/u-s-military-power-grab-goes-into-effect/

Andy Ngô

@MrAndyNgo

Police in Bellingham, Wash. have released body camera footage showing what happened when #antifa attacked them at their autonomous encampment outside city hall on 28 Jan. Days prior, the antifa stormed their way inside, causing the mayor to be evacuated. https://youtu.be/2bB7S0PmeJg

>>54701

G’night and sleep well.

Thursday !

>>54709

Strange drinks n snax yayyyyyyyyyyy.

The best. Can’t wait.

Capitol Police Chief Forced to Resign Drops Damning Letter to Pelosi Revealing What Really Happened Ahead of Capitol Riots

Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund warned the Congress six times about the high risk of impending attacks on the capitol building before the January 6th “insurrection.”

Now, his resignation letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi has surfaced. And it is scathing. [READ THE FULL LETTER HERE.]

“Perfect hindsight does not change the fact that nothing in our collective experience or our intelligence – including intelligence provided by FBI, Secret Service, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and D.C. Metropolitan Police (MPD) – indicated that a well-coordinated, armed assault on the Capitol might occur on Jan. 6,” Sund wrote. The letter was first obtained by the NY Times.

This intelligence, given at least three days prior to the attack, indicates that the pre-planned riot could not have been “incited” by former President Trump’s speech. Thus, impeachment claims to this point are moot and are fallacious cases of post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning, which means “after this, therefore because of this.”

Sund’s intelligence explicitly named violent left-wing extremist group Antifa as a “expected” to participate.

“Members of the Proud Boys, white supremacist groups, Antifa, and other extremist groups were expected to participate in the Jan. 6 event and that they may be inclined to become violent,” he wrote.

“This was very similar to the intelligence assessment of the Dec. 12, 2020, MAGA II event.” Sund says there was a “limited amount of violence and/or injuries to officers, and a limited number of arrests.”

“Having previously handled two major post-election demonstrations successfully utilizing an action plan that was based on intelligence assessments that had proven to be credible, reliable, and accurate, we reasonably assumed the intelligence assessment for Jan. 6, 2021, was also correct,” he added.

The former Capitol Police chief said that he notified the U.S. Army five times about the danger in a local interview:

https://beckernews.com/capitol-police-chief-forced-to-resign-drops-damning-letter-to-pelosi-revealing-what-really-happened-ahead-of-capitol-riots-36543/

>>54721

Cont.

“We need boots on the ground, immediate assistance,” he said. “Right then and there, helping to form police lines and secure the foundation of the United States capitol building.”

This turned out to be the opposite of what happened, as capitol police and national guard presence was light and unusually passive as protesters had their way with the capitol building seemingly without resistance.

Speaker Pelosi demanded that Sund resign after the capitol riots, despite his repeated warnings to the Congress, the military, and the intelligence community about what was about to occur. Senator Ron Johnson is now asking questions about Pelosi’s possible knowledge of the impending attack.

“Is this another diversionary operation?” Johnson said in an interview with Maria Bartiromo. “Is this meant to deflect away from potentially what the Speaker knew and when she knew it? I don’t know, but I’m suspicious.”

It has since come out in a Time piece that there was coordination between radical agitators and a powerful “shadow campaign” operating behind the scenes to “fortify” the election. As the Time piece relates, a coalition of big tech companies, corporate giants, labor unions and influential left-wing organizations engaged in a “conspiracy” to ensure that Donald Trump would not be re-elected.

“ This is what was reported in the story, which spins the preparations for the election fall-out as “fortifying” democracy:

On March 3, Podhorzer drafted a three-page confidential memo titled “Threats to the 2020 Election.” “Trump has made it clear that this will not be a fair election, and that he will reject anything but his own re-election as ‘fake’ and rigged,” he wrote. “On Nov. 3, should the media report otherwise, he will use the right-wing information system to establish his narrative and incite his supporters to protest.”

The fabricated inception of this memo was approximately nine months before the January 6th Capitol “insurrection.” More than enough time for advance warning, which would subsequently be ignored by the Congress prior to the anticipated Electoral College objections.

One of the many revelations in this pieces was that these shadowy actors told the leaders of these left-wing groups not to have a visible presence at the planned protests. While these hostile actors were reported by the media to have been missing from the scene at the capitol building protest, there were numerous credible reports, including one by America’s foremost war correspondent, that Antifa infiltrators were mingling in the crowd.

Nonetheless, the story admits Podhorzer was directly coordinating with these left-wing extremist groups and the word purportedly went out: Stand down.

https://beckernews.com/capitol-police-chief-forced-to-resign-drops-damning-letter-to-pelosi-revealing-what-really-happened-ahead-of-capitol-riots-36543/

>>54721

>>54722

Cont.

“ So the word went out: stand down. Protect the Results announced that it would “not be activating the entire national mobilization network today, but remains ready to activate if necessary.” On Twitter, outraged progressives wondered what was going on. Why wasn’t anyone trying to stop Trump’s coup? Where were all the protests?

Podhorzer credits the activists for their restraint. “They had spent so much time getting ready to hit the streets on Wednesday. But they did it,” he says. “Wednesday through Friday, there was not a single Antifa vs. Proud Boys incident like everyone was expecting. And when that didn’t materialize, I don’t think the Trump campaign had a backup plan.”

There was not a single Antifa vs. Proud Boys incident documented by the media. But where were these radical activists? Were they dressing up in MAGA gear to avoid media detection?

It was one of the most bizarre spectacles of modern times. On January 6th, the Electoral College’s slates of electors were being sent to a Joint Session of Congress, which was to be presided over by then-Vice President Mike Pence in his role as President of the Senate.

It was a day that many voters had been looking forward to: Americans would finally hear the Republicans’ best case that the 2020 election was, at best, deeply flawed, and at worst, unlawful and illegitimate.

The election dispute began with Arizona. The objection had been presaged by passionate and persuasive speeches, such as one delivered by Senator Rand Paul. These election objections would not last for long.

It was not the unprecedented, “seditious” act that radical Democrats allege. Such objections had been voiced by Democrats in 2000, 2004, and 2016. The party itself had normalized it; just as it is normalizing the extremely divisive practice of politically driven impeachments.

Meanwhile, Washington D.C. had become the central focus for both die-hard Trump supporters and a mix of far-right groups, including the “Stop the Steal” organizers and the Proud Boys. There was a conspicuous absence of the usual left-wing suspects that are typically drawn to large right-wing gatherings, such as Antifa and Black Lives Matters leaders.

President Donald Trump, meanwhile, was guilty only of giving a boilerplate speech making his shopworn case that the election was illegitimate. The president had pleaded this same case countless times before, in much the same terms, and said nothing remarkable deviating from that script. And nothing remarkable had happened after all of those times he had made a virtually identical case.

Trump told the gathered crowd of his actual most fervent supporters who had come from all across the country to listen to him speak explicitly to “peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.” A timeline reveals that the Capitol riot began twenty minutes before the president’s speech ended. Yet there appears to have been a trap set to frame President Trump for inciting a riot.

Numerous aspects of the entire capitol riot affair appears to have been staged. There were pipebombs placed at the RNC and DNC buildings the night before (and not near the capitol building, as some Democrats have falsely claimed), a classic diversion tactic to draw away police forces from the site of an actual incursion.

There was an obscenely insufficent lack of capitol building security. This was despite advance warnings that the odds of an attack on the capitol building were increasing by the day, including an intelligence report issued by the Capitol Police itself:

https://beckernews.com/capitol-police-chief-forced-to-resign-drops-damning-letter-to-pelosi-revealing-what-really-happened-ahead-of-capitol-riots-36543/

>>54723

Thanks for testing. Same as before then.

4700 was always the safe side.

>>54724

Cont.

“Three days before thousands of rioters converged on the U.S. Capitol, an internal Capitol Police intelligence report warned of a violent scenario in which “Congress itself” could be the target of angry supporters of President Trump on Jan. 6, laying out a stark alert that deepens questions about the security failures that day.

In a 12-page report on Jan. 3, the intelligence unit of the congressional police force described how thousands of enraged protesters, egged on by Trump and flanked by white supremacists and extreme militia groups, were likely to stream into Washington armed for battle.”

This time, the focus of their ire would be members of Congress, the report said.

The now-resigned Capitol Police chief warned the Congress about an imminent pre-planned attack six times, according to his account, but was denied a stronger presence. It is important to read exactly what the Washington Post reported:

“ Two days before Congress was set to formalize President-elect Joe Biden’s victory, Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund was growing increasingly worried about the size of the pro-Trump crowds expected to stream into Washington in protest.

To be on the safe side, Sund asked House and Senate security officials for permission to request that the D.C. National Guard be placed on standby in case he needed quick backup.”

“We knew we would have large crowds, the potential for some violent altercations,” he added.

The responses from the House’s and the Senate’s respective Sergeant at Arms were reckless at best:

“ House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said he wasn’t comfortable with the “optics” of formally declaring an emergency ahead of the demonstration, Sund said. Meanwhile, Senate Sergeant at Arms Michael Stenger suggested that Sund should informally seek out his Guard contacts, asking them to “lean forward” and be on alert in case Capitol Police needed their help.

”

Thus, an emergency could have been declared before the riot broke out. Instead, the message to the Capitol Police and the National Guard: Keep the presence light and the security passive. The House and Senate Sergeant at Arms have since resigned.

The Capitol Police held the doors open for protesters to enter the building. “I disagree with it, but I respect it,” one officer said as protesters shuffled past him.

There were other suspicious aspects of the assembled mob. One high-profile actor was John Earle Sullivan, a radical self-described “revolutionary” who literally founded a group called “Insurgence USA.” After documenting his own account of what transpired, including the suspect shooting death of Trump supporter Ashli Babbitt, he was arrested and charged for his role in helping to incite the riot.

He would later be given an open and welcome platform on CNN to relate what he saw at the capitol building, along with a CNN correspondent who had been right next to him within the building.

One of the protesters that Sullivan filmed appears to have staged the event that led to Babbitt’s shooting. He used a helmet handed to him to smash a window that Babbitt crawled through before being shot. He escaped with police standing by idly nearby, and was recently arrested. The FBI launched a manhunt, and has finally apprehended and charged the suspect, named Zachary Alam. No charges were recommended for the officer who shot and killed Babbitt.

The Capitol riots chaos meant that the president’s claims the election was ‘stolen‘ would never be fully heard by the bulk of the American people. The censorship of the big tech thought police would drive people to hear the case that President Trump had incited a ‘riot’ as presented overwhelmingly through a mainstream media filter.

It turns out that basis for suspending Donald Trump from digital and social media platforms was entirely erroneous. Therefore, their rationale for continuing their bans and suspensions is purely political and has nothing to do with public “safety.”

Furthermore, the entire basis of the Democrats’ impeachment vendetta against Donald Trump is fundamentally eroded to the point of it appearing to be nothing more than a cynical ploy.

The question that now arises: Was it a “trap”?

/end/

https://beckernews.com/capitol-police-chief-forced-to-resign-drops-damning-letter-to-pelosi-revealing-what-really-happened-ahead-of-capitol-riots-36543/

>>54732

Maybe don’t take the bake if you’re just messing around.

There are other bakers here.

>>54730

This is the last part of the police chief’s letter to Pelosi.

>>54737

Maybe don’t say you’re just messing around then.

>>54740

I did.